A letter from Innocent III, pope (1210, April 13)

Translated letter:

To noblewoman A., sister of the nobleman, the marquis of Meißen. Since recently the query on your part has been conveyed to our ears, that although our dearest son in Christ, …the renowned king of the Bohemians, had taken you lawfully as wife and 18 years and more had treated you as a legitimate spouse, with sons and daughters received from you, and our venerable brother… bishop of Prague, at the request and command of the same king, with you willing to go to him so that you might relate your account in his presence, but you were obstructed by the attendants of the mentioned king, after an appeal brought forth to us, (the bishop) had pronounced a judgment of divorce, which you caused to be appealed through your chaplain within 10 days: with the same king subsequently marrying C[onstance], our dearest daughter in Christ, sister of our dearest son in Christ [Andrew II]…the renowned king of the Hungarians, after conflicting letters were obtained concerning the same matter, we finally commanded our venerable brothers, …bishops of Halberstadt and of Nürnberg and the beloved son… abbot of Pfordt, that they should seek more diligently the truth from those who they know should be called to their presence, and what they discover they should make known to us through their letters, so that sufficiently informed by their report, we may proceed more freely in this matter itself. Subsequently they received the witnesses summoned on your part, who swore to tell the truth on behalf of both sides, and they dispatched to our presence their testimonies sealed with their own seals. But when your proctor and the messenger of that king gathered at the Apostolic See on account of this, litigated for some time in the presence of our beloved son P., cardinal priest of the title St. Marcellus, whom we appointed as judge for them, and the proctor himself asserted that those same testimonies should be approved, and the messenger in opposition requested that they be rejected, since the dispute had not been contested and the testimonies had been received inordinately after the appeal legitimately brought to us: we, having understood through that cardinal the arguments on both sides, have caused the aforesaid testimonies not to be approved nor rejected, but we have decided that they should be reserved for a time of discussion, so that then it may be argued against them or for them by the parties to our venerable brother…archbishop of Salzburg and his participating cojudges, so that with the parties called together to a suitable place, ceasing all excuse and contradiction, they might receive the witnesses, whom your side or (that of) the king might cause to be summoned, since you had not yet learned what had been testified concerning the proceeding of the bishop of Prague or of the aforesaid judges, so that you might be forbidden very little to introduce witnesses whom you had previously brought forth, or others, if you wish, since you had not renounced the witnesses brought forth, and they would direct all these matters summarized in documents to the Apostolic See, fixing a suitable time for the parties by which they would present themselves to our presence to receive a judgment. Since they, on account of various impediments, could not proceed, our venerable brother H., bishop of Oste, and our beloved son L., cardinal priest of the Holy Cross, who then served in the office of legate in Teutonia, both by our authority and theirs, …. committed the same matter according to the abovewritten plan to the bishop of Havelberg, then elect, and … of St. George and …to the abbots of Sichem. They, after many reviews of the case, as was indicated to us in the letters of the aforesaid bishop and abbots of Sichem, bestowed the favor of absolution on the mentioned king, who had been excommunicated by them on account of clear disobedience, but with the pledge received by oath by the same one that he would appear for justice in their presence. After they had assigned peremptorily a day and place to pursue the matter, on account of his disobedience they now reinstated onto him the previous judgment, receiving witnesses summoned by your party. However since subsequently you had impressed upon our ears repeated complaints, and we deliberated with our brothers what we had to do to settle the matter that has been delayed so many times, finally it occurred that after the same case had been discussed under our investigation it was to receive a merited conclusion. From this we gave instructions to our venerable brother, the archbishop of Mainz, that he should assign on our behalf to the parties the next kalends of October as a peremptory period, within which, through themselves or suitable representatives, with all the things that they know to be necessary for the case, they would present themselves to our presence to receive the judgment. Also we have commanded that the sense of the summons be communicated to the above-said C., sister of the king of Hungary, whom the king of Bohemia joined to himself, so that if she wishes, she may direct suitable representatives for her defense. Moreover since recently your proctor and that of our beloved son … and…, of that king and of C., sister of the king of Hungary, had approached the Apostolic See on account of this: your proctor requested that the testimonies of witnesses brought forth in the presence of the first and second judges be made public and that the favor of restoration be bestowed upon you, with the judgment of the aforesaid bishop of Prague rejected, in order to strengthen his (the proctor’s) own assertion with many arguments of canon and civil law introduced. But the proctors of the opposite party were saying that those testimonies should not be opened, nor should we proceed in the matter according to them, since the judges had proceeded in the matter mentioned, with the suit not contested and the right order of the law had been allowed, and after the appeal legitimately brought forth to us, because they had assigned a suspicious place to the king himself, and because the aforesaid sister of the king of Hungary had not been called to the case, to whom defense of the same matter pertained. For since she, after the above sentence of divorce between you and the abovesaid king had been proclaimed by the aforesaid bishop, appeared with faith pledged in the presence of many officials of Hungary, in the sight of the church she was united to the same king: she, undefended and not summoned, who existed at that time as if in possession of the king himself, whose restoration was being sought, ought not be called forth in the abovesaid matter, especially since it was expressed in those same letters sent that they would call those who they knew should be summoned. From this not only the king, but also C. herself should have been called, since this seemed to be our intention based on the fact that we ordered that the sense of the latest summons be communicated not only to the king but also to the said noble (woman), so that if she wished, she might within the predetermined time direct suitable representatives for her defense. The proctors themselves endeavored with many reasons to prove the aforesaid. Moreover the same party proposed that the testimonies received in the second place should be rejected since the judges who received the witnesses caused the matter to proceed, after it had been appealed to us by those inasmuch as (they are) clearly suspect, with the messenger of the same king specially sent on account of this to the Apostolic See. It was proposed by that party moreover that you were never heard requesting restoration, since you were deprived by authority of the judge, who is presumed to have proceeded legitimately, nor could you be restored without injustice and casting off of C. herself, who then by authority of the church was as if in possession of the aforesaid king, since he who possesses, with the provost as executor, seems to possess justly according to law. Also the same party was proposing that you must not be heard against the judgment of the aforesaid bishop of Prague, which (judgment) by your own free will you had formerly caused to be approved, especially since evidence was legitimately offered by the party of the aforesaid sister of the king concerning the excessive degree of consanguinity between you and the aforesaid king; since even if perhaps the judgment against the king were sustained, nonetheless its accomplishment would need to be deferred, so that injustice could not be caused to the aforesaid C. regarding possession of the king, as we are told was determined in a certain other case not very dissimilar to this. In addition to this, which was mentioned, that the first judges had proceeded when the suit had not been contested, it was responded by your party that the other party could not allege this. For since (the party) acknowledged that the suit was contested in the presence of the bishop of Prague, who proclaimed the judgment of divorce, in the case of appeal, which is understood (to be) with the same first (suit), it was not appropriate for the suit to be contested again. But even if the same party were to grant that the suit had not been contested in the presence of the bishop, nevertheless since witnesses were called forth by that (party) against you, (the party) could not allege that, with the suit not contested, you had called forth witnesses less legitimately, since he who violates the law invokes the aid of the law in vain. But not the said sister of the king of Hungary, rather only the king, whom the case chiefly regarded, should be summoned by the judges mentioned, (and) since the principal issue had been decided, the case of C. herself, who was viewed as an accessory, consequently should be laid to rest; especially since at the defense of the case, which was enacted publicly, if she feared it would be injurious to her, she could have appeared. But not all those whom this motion touches are called to its examination as is seen in many cases which are covered by civil laws, though for caution and by special grace we have ordered the archbishop of Mainz to announce the sense of the summons to said noble woman. Your procurator also proposed that another side could not be alleged because the last witnesses after the appeal was made to us had been irregularly received by the judges, since it was prepared after the oath taken to their judgment was promised, on account of which she seemed to have renounced the benefit of appeal. Against which the opposing side said that the oath had been taken under this condition unless the messenger of the king sent especially for this to our presence reported the opposite on our part. It was said that the restitution sought by you could not be hindered by said sister of the king for the reason that he had begun to possess her by authority of the bishop. For that authority had been usurped by the act of the bishop who proceeded after the appeal was legitimately made to us. But the restitution could not be hindered by her for the objection of consanguinity since the king himself was scarcely heard to allege it. He said that was nonetheless a trifle that you were said to have approved the sentence since the sentence could not assume force through your approval, which had been invalidated by law. Since therefore full faith over the process of the bishop of Prague could not be effected, with the dispute legitimately contested before us and with certain witnesses received about it on the part of the king, saving all exceptions, we have conceded a delay until the first feast of St. Martin, with the assent of the procurators of both sides, yours and the adversary’s; ordering you by the authority of the presents [this document] that unless perhaps an honorable agreement could meanwhile occur between you within that period, which we assign by peremptory summons to you that you appear before us through suitable representatives sufficiently instructed in all matters that pertain to the case, so that that case, diligently examined by us, may reach its proper end.

Original letter:

Nobili mulieri A., sorori nobilis viri marchionis Misnensis. Dudum ad aures nostras ex parte tua questione perlata, quod cum karissimus in Christo filius noster . . rex Boemorum illustris te duxisset legitime in uxorem ac decem et octo annis et amplius velud coniugem legitimam pertractasset, filiis et filiabus ex te susceptis, ac venerabilis frater noster . . Pragensis episcopus ad petitionem et mandatum eiusdem regis, te volente ad eum accedere, ut tuas coram eo proponeres rationes, sed a satellitibus memorati regis prohibita, post appellationem ad nos interpositam divorcii sentenciam promulgasset, a qua fecisti per capellanum tuum infra decendium appellari: eodem rege superducente postmodum carissimam in Christo filiam C., sororem carissimi in Christo filii nostri .. regis Vngarorum illustris, post diversas litteras super eodem negocio impetratas demum venerabilibus fratribus nostris . , Halberstatensi et . , Nuemburgensi episcopis et dilecto filio ,. abbati de Porta dedimus in mandatis, ut vocatis ad suam presenciam, quos noscerent evocandos, inquirerent diligencius veritatem, et quod invenirent, per suas nobis litteras intimarent, ut ex eorum relatione sufficienter instructi, procedere liberius in ipso negocio valeremus. Ipsi vero testes postea receperunt ex tua parte productos, qui iuraverunt pro utraque parte dicere veritatem, et depositiones eorum propriis sigillis inclusas ad nostram presenciam transmiserunt. Verum cum procurator tuus et nuncius eiusdem regis, propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam constituti, coram dilecto filio nostro P., tituli sancti Marcelli presbytero cardinali, quem ipsis dedimus auditorem, aliquamdiu litigassent, et procurator ipse attestationes easdem approbandas assereret, et nuncius ex adverso eas, utpote lite non contestata et post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam inordinate receptas, peteret reprobari: nos intellectis per cardinalem ipsum utrimque propositis, attestationes prefatas nec approbandas duximus, nec etiam reprobandas, sed eas tempori discussionis decrevimus reservari, ut tunc contra illas allegaretur a partibus vel pro illis, venerabili fratri nostro . . Salzburgensi archiepiscopo et eius coniudicibus iniungentes, Ut partibus ad locum ydoneum convocatis, omni excusatione ac contradictione cessantibus, reciperent testes, quos pars tua vel regis, cum nondum didicissetis testificata, super processu Pragensis episcopi vel predictorum iudicum duceret producendos, ita quod tu testes, quos prius induxeras, vel alios, si velles, inducere minime vetareris, cum non renunciasses testibus producendis, et gesta omnia redacta in scriptis ad sedem apostolicam destinarent, prefigentes partibus terminum competentem, quo nostro se conspectui presentarent, sentenciam recepture. Qui quoniam propter impedimenta varia procedere nequiverunt, venerabilis frater noster H. Hostiensis episcopus, et dilectus filius L., tituli sancte Crucis presbyter cardinalis, qui tunc legationis officio in Teutonia fungebantur, auctoritate tarn nostra quam sua . . Auelbergensi episcopo, tunc electo, et .. sancti Georgii et .. de Sychem abbatibus iuxta prescriptam formam idem negocium commisere. Qui post multos cause circuitus, sicud ex litteris predictorum episcopi et abbatis de Sychem nobis innotuit, memorato regi, qui propter contumaciam manifestam fuerat excommunicatus ab eis, absolutionis beneficium impenderunt, ab eodem recepta iuratoria cautione, quod pareret iusticie coram ipsis. Cui cum diem et locum ad prosequendum priorem eum sentenciam reduxerunt, recipientes testes ex tua parte productos. Cum autem postmodum iteratos clamores nostris auribus inculcasses, et nos deliberaverimus cum fratribus nostris, quid ad expediendum negocium tociens impeditum agere deberemus, hoc tandem occurrit, ut sub examine nostro causa eadem ventilata finem debitum sortiretur. Unde venerabili fratri nostro . .Maguntino archiepiscopo dedimus in preceptis, ut ex parte nostra partibus pro termino peremptorio kalendas octobris proximo preteritas assignaret, infra quas per se aut responsales idoneos cum omnibus, que ad causam necessaria noscerent, nostro se conspectui presentarent sententiam recepture. Supradicte quoque C., sorori regis Vngarie, quam sibi rex Boemie copularat, citationis tenorem iussimus intimari, ut si vellet, ad defensionem suam idoneos dirigeret responsales. Porro cum nuper dilecti filii .. tuus et .. ac .. tam ipsius regis quam C., sororis regis Vngarie, procuratores, propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam accessissent: procurator tuus depositiones testium coram primis et secundis iudicibus productorum petiit publicari et tibi beneficium restitutionis impendi, sentencia predicti Pragensis episcopi reprobata, ad assertionem propriam roborandam multis iuris canonici et civilis argumentis inductis. Procuratores vero partis adverse attestationes ipsas aperiendas non esse dicebant, neque secundum eas in negocio procedendum, quoniam iudices lite non contestata et iuris ordine pretermisso, ac post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam, pro eo, quod locum suspectum assignaverant ipsi regi, in negocio processerant inemorato, et quia prefata soror regis Vngarie ad causam evocata non fuerat, ad quam eiusdem negocii defensio pertinebat. Cum enim ipsa, postquam super sentencia divorcii inter te ac sepe dictum regem a prefato episcopo promulgata extitit coram multis prelatis Vngarie facta fides, eidem regi fuerit in conspectu ecclesie copulata: ea indefensa et non citata, que in quasi possessionem ipsius regis, cuius restitutio petebatur, tunc temporis existebat, non debuit in negocio supradicto procedi, maxime cum expressum fuerit in litteris transmissis eisdem, ut vocarent quos noscerent evocandos. Unde non solum rex, sed et ipsa quoque C. debuit evocari, cum talis fuisse nostra intentio videretur ex eo, quod ultime citationis tenorem non solum regi, sed etiam dicte nobili mandavimus intimari, ut si vellet, prefixo termino ad defensionem suam idoneos dirigeret responsales. Predicta vero probare procuratores ipsi multis rationibus nitebantur. Attestationes quoque secundo loco receptas eadem pars proposuit respuendas, cum iudices, qui testes receperant, postquam ab eis, utpote manifeste suspectis, ad nos fuerat appellatum, eiusdem regis nuncio propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam specialiter destinato, duxerint in negocio procedendum. Ex eadem insuper fuit parte propositum, quod tu nequaquam eras restitutionem postulans audienda, cum spoliata fueris auctoritate iudicis, qui presumitur legitime processisse, nec absque ipsius C. poteras preiudicio et iactura restitui, que in prefati regis quasi possessione ecclesie auctoritate tunc erat, cum is, qui auctore pretore possidet, iuste possidere regulariter videatur. Eadem quoque pars proponebat te non debere contra sentenciam predicti episcopi Pragensis audiri, quam tua sponte olim duxeras approbandam, maxime cum ex parte predicte sororis regis super consanguinitatis linea inter te ac prefatum regem in continenti probationes legitime offerrentur; cum etsi ferretur forsitan sentencia contra regem, nichilominus eius esset executio differenda, ne antedicte C. circa possessionem regis posset preiudicium generari, sicut in quodam alio casu non multum huic absimili dicimur difinisse. Ceterum ad hoc, quod premissum est, lite non contestata priores iudices processisse, fuit ex tua parte responsum, quod hoc pars altera non poterat allegare. Cum enim confiteretur litem coram Pragensi episcopo contestatam, qui divorcii sentenciam promulgavit, in appellationis causa, que intelligitur eadem cum priori, litem non oportuit denuo contestari. Sed etsi litem non fuisse coram episcopo contestatam pars eadem fateretur, cum tamen testes fuerint ab ipsa producti contra te, non poterat allegare, quod lite non contestata testes minus legitime produxisses cum frustra legis auxilium invocet, qui committit in legem. Sed nec dicta soror regis Vngarie, ymmo rex solummodo debuit a iudicibus memoratis citari, quem causa principaliter contingebat, cum principali questione decisa, causa ipsius C. que accessoria videbatur, per consequenciam sopiretur; maxime cum ad defensionem cause, que publice agebatur, si sibi preiudicari timebat, se potuerit obtulisse. Sed nec omnes, quos questio mota contingit, ad examinationem evocantur ipsius, sicud in multis casibus est videri civilibus legibus conprehensis, quamquam ad cautelam et ex gracia speciali mandaverimus archiepiscopo Maguntino, ut citationis tenorem supradicte nobili nunciaret. Proposuit etiam procurator tuus non posse partem alteram allegare, quod attestationes ultime post appellationem ad nos interpositam a iudicibus fuerint inordinate recepte, cum postmodum eorumdem iudicio se promiserit iuramento interposito parituram, propter quod renunciasse appellationis beneficio videbatur. Contra quod pars adversa dicebat, quod sub conditione fuerat prestitum huiusmodi iuramentum, nisi videlicet regis nuncius propter hoc specialiter ad nostram presenciam destinatus mandatum ex parte nostra contrarium reportaret. Restitutionem quoque a te petitam, a dicta sorore regis impediri non posse dicebat, eo pretextu videlicet, quod auctore pretore ceperat possidere. Nam ex facto episcopi, qui post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam inordinate processerat, huiusmodi fuerat auctoritas usurpata. Sed nec consanguinitatis obiectu per eam poterat restitutio impediri, cum et rex ipse hoc idem allegans minime audiretur. Illud nichilominus frivolum esse dicebat, quod tu approbasse sentenciam dicebaris, cum per approbationem tuam sentencia nequiverit robur sumere, que irrita fuerat ipso iure. Cum igitur super hiis et aliis utrimque propositis nobis nequiverit fieri plena fides super processu Pragensis episcopi, coram nobis lite legitime contestata et quibusdam testibus super ipso pro parte regis receptis, universis exceptionibus salvis, de procuratorum utriusque partis assensu tam tibi quam parti adverse dilationem usque ad festum sancti Martini primo venturum duximus cocedendam; presencium tibi auctoritate mandantes, quatinus, nisi forsan interim inter vos honesta poterit concordia provenire, in eodem termino, quem tibi peremptorium assignamus per responsales ydoneos et sufficienter instructos super omnibus, que spectant ad causam, compareas coram nobis, ut per nos causa ipsa diligenter examinata finem debitum sorciatur.

Historical context:

The pope writes to the queen about the current state of her appeal of her divorce. Her husband, Ottokar I, had repudiated her on the grounds of consanguinity to marry Constance of Hungary, over ten years earlier, and Adelheid had fought the decree. The pope describes the complicated stages of the proceedings and announces a date in November of the same year for the final judgment to be made. The divorce would be recognized.

Scholarly notes:

1 The translation was provided by Ashleigh Imus.

Printed source:

Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Regni Bohemiae, v.2 ep.88, pp.81-85.

Date:

1210, April 13